On Sat, 7 May 2005 08:52 pm, Francois Gouget wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Robert Lunnon wrote:
> [...]
>> > # diff -u wineshelllink.old wineshelllink
> > --- wineshelllink.old mer mai 4 11:47:30 2005
> > +++ wineshelllink mer mai 4 11:50:03 2005
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -#!/bin/sh
> > +#!/bin/bash
>> This is wrong. Some users may not have bash installed and the script
> should still work on their systems. So the fix is not to make the
> script fail to run on any system which does not have bash but to
> modify it so it works with any standard Bourne shell, including the
> Solaris one.
Wrong? Well actually, bash is wrong, it doesn't properly emulate Bourne shell
behaviour when called as sh, a constant source of irritation for Solaris
users I assure you. So the "Correct" fix is to fix bash, but then doing that
will break half of linux. Now you see why I choose Solaris... But this is
besides the point.
Let's agree the solution is not necessarily *Wrong*, It does in fact work, so
it can't be wrong. The script as written is bash feature bound, and therefore
should be executed by bash. What you really mean is that Laurent didn't fix
the problem the way you wanted it to be fixed.
BTW I have no objection to making wine dependent on bash, bash is available
for all platforms and is probably more regular than bourne shell across
platforms, though I think perhaps perhaps ksh might be a safer standard shell
choice and it's more likely to be closer than /bin/sh to being able to parse
bash dependent scripts properly.
Maybe there are other thoughts out there on which interpreter would be best
for wine's purposes.
Perhaps Laurent might be willing to take a look at the bash dependencies, if
not I'll add it to my patch list to be maintained outside the wine project
until I get around to looking at it.
Bob